A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law. Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy’s staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge

***Time to watch what is sent on SLS? obama has already proven he has no problem outing lifestylers.

"My question is why the left supporting this now, yet whined to new levels under the Patriot Act?"

I did not support then, I'm disappointed BHO did not overturn it and I do not support it now. Hopefully it is something he will do before leaving office.

Cape Coral FL

Username hidden
(4326 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Azqt:

Until the law is voted upon and made into a law... It is simply ideas passed back and forth. That is how you get deals made to get the things you want passed. You collect ideas, put them to paper, cut and past until you get the final law and then vote upon it.

Until it is voted upon and passed, all you are doing is obstructing the process with fear. Demand that it not pass when it comes to a final vote.

Hazle Township PA

Username hidden
(7989 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Robert,

Precisely. My question is why the left supporting this now, yet whined to new levels under the Patriot Act?

I do thank you for at least discussing the topic and rarely resorting to name calling and insults like you father, ghost, does along with avoiding the topic. You sir, are far above your father in this aspect.

Peoria AZ

Username hidden
(2389 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Azqt:

Even if the government could take a look at any email older than 180 days, the patriot act allows the government to take you out of your home at any moment without trial or acess to a lawyer. Let alone seize your property and not return it once the (I think it is 72hours that the government can hold citizens without charges)

If you are going to be so fearful of the government... It stands to reason that they can then alter your hard drive to make it seem like you downloaded illegal material. All of which become usable in court as discovered evidence of a crime while searching for other evidence.

A little illegal or highly immoral porn hidden in the windows directory and no one will believe your claims of innocence... Even if you were innocent.

Hazle Township PA

Username hidden
(7989 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Seems I own more than just a little bit of real estate in azz hat's, ume...I mean azz rug's mind. If I were you I would worry more about what Fun Ahoy said here, it makes you look really dumb. And a liar. But that's par for you.... _____________________________

"AzzHat prolly ought to have a full-time factchecker assigned to her, for all the falsehoods she posts. But I can't do it. The one instance that I took the time to confront one of her many outright lies, she hurled a bunch of insults at me, deleted several of her posts, and then blocked me so that she wouldn't have to be troubled with facts.

But I can see this OP, which took all of ten minutes to discover is false. Leahy has supported an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, to close loopholes in the law. The original law, passed three-decades ago, treated 180-day old emails essentially as abandoned garbage that investigators could rummage through at will.

Leahy and others proposed to change that by restricting the government's power to take certain actions without a warrant. His actual position is clearly stated on his Senate website (Leahy.Senate. Gov) in a section-by-section analysis of his amendment, preceded by this note:

"The rumors about warrant exceptions being added to ECPA are incorrect. Many have come forward with ideas for discussion before markup resumes on my bill to strengthen privacy protections under ECPA. As normally happens in the legislative process, these ideas are being circulated for discussion. One of them, having to do with a warrant exception, is one that I have not supported and do not support. The whole thrust of my bill is to remedy the erosion of the public’s privacy rights under the rapid advances of technology that we have seen since ECPA was first enacted thirty years ago. In particular, my proposal would require search warrants for government access to email stored by third-party service providers – something that of course was not contemplated three decades ago."

AzzHat can take all the cheap shots she wants at "the cry babies on the left." Leahy's initiatives in this case are supported by a consortium of privacy advocates including the ACLU and several right-leaning and libertarian orgs (Americans for Tax Reform, Campaign for Liberty, etc.) Plus, virtually all of the major online corporations (Google, AOL, etc.) A list of these leftist "cry babies" supporting Leahy's amendment can be found at DigitalDueProcess. org, which trumpeted Leahy's legislation to require a warrant (not avoid one), with this headline:

"AzzHat has zero credibility and is nothing more than a hack. Is anyone besides me amused that the people why cry the loudest about "dishonest liberals" never seem to find the time to debunk even one of the serial falsehoods from their own cohorts?"

East Fishkill NY

Username hidden
(3613 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

ROFLMFAO at ghost and bobby,

Two of the biggest crybabies to never provide a source, yet demand such from others. Typical hypocrisy of the left.

Read HR 2471. Granted, you have to be able to read with comprehension, so good luck in your losing endeavor.

Peoria AZ

Username hidden
(2389 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

By the way, a report corroborating Leahy's statement and debunking the false rumor that AzzHat is promoting here, can be found on Forbes online. Not exactly a bastion of lefty cry babies. The Forbes article goes on to point out that the version of the amendment, that AzzHat is referring to, actually is being pushed by Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican. So much for honesty in AzzHat's thread title that a "Democratic Bill" is one that would let the Feds read your email.

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(11299 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

AzzHat prolly ought to have a full-time factchecker assigned to her, for all the falsehoods she posts. But I can't do it. The one instance that I took the time to confront one of her many outright lies, she hurled a bunch of insults at me, deleted several of her posts, and then blocked me so that she wouldn't have to be troubled with facts.

But I can see this OP, which took all of ten minutes to discover is false. Leahy has supported an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, to close loopholes in the law. The original law, passed three-decades ago, treated 180-day old emails essentially as abandoned garbage that investigators could rummage through at will.

Leahy and others proposed to change that by restricting the government's power to take certain actions without a warrant. His actual position is clearly stated on his Senate website (Leahy.Senate. Gov) in a section-by-section analysis of his amendment, preceded by this note:

"The rumors about warrant exceptions being added to ECPA are incorrect. Many have come forward with ideas for discussion before markup resumes on my bill to strengthen privacy protections under ECPA. As normally happens in the legislative process, these ideas are being circulated for discussion. One of them, having to do with a warrant exception, is one that I have not supported and do not support. The whole thrust of my bill is to remedy the erosion of the public’s privacy rights under the rapid advances of technology that we have seen since ECPA was first enacted thirty years ago. In particular, my proposal would require search warrants for government access to email stored by third-party service providers – something that of course was not contemplated three decades ago."

AzzHat can take all the cheap shots she wants at "the cry babies on the left." Leahy's initiatives in this case are supported by a consortium of privacy advocates including the ACLU and several right-leaning and libertarian orgs (Americans for Tax Reform, Campaign for Liberty, etc.) Plus, virtually all of the major online corporations (Google, AOL, etc.) A list of these leftist "cry babies" supporting Leahy's amendment can be found at DigitalDueProcess. org, which trumpeted Leahy's legislation to require a warrant (not avoid one), with this headline:

AzzHat has zero credibility and is nothing more than a hack. Is anyone besides me amused that the people why cry the loudest about "dishonest liberals" never seem to find the time to debunk even one of the serial falsehoods from their own cohorts?

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(11299 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

azz rug may have a hard time with the concept of citing one's facts...

I'd love to see if there is anything to this as well but I'm not holding my breath waiting for citations from the likes of this guy

East Fishkill NY

Username hidden
(3613 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Azqt:

If this is true, I wish you would have linked or given us the name of the bill.

If this is true, then I would be bitching to my congressmen that his vote is to make this bill a DOA bill. (dead on arrival.) Then to my state governor to have the state attorney general stop wasting our tax payer money on attacking Obama care and start attacking this bill.